I suppose that underlines the problem. Because we're not in receipt of this report, to get an assessment of the appropriateness of the motion is very difficult for members. I am not saying at all to presuppose in any way that the report itself might be instructive and helpful. It may well be, and I know Madam Demers to be of the most forthright intentions here in putting this in front of the committee. But in all honesty, until we've had a look and can take a close look at this report to see what steps might be taken next, this might just be a bit premature.
I was going to say, though, there is no question that we need to be concerned, of course, about the evolution of this circumstance. It is disturbing to all of us. But I think Madam Demers hit on the right point, which is that what is required here is investigation of the disappearances. This is an effort that requires the greatest of coordination of law enforcement, of the provincial and territorial resources that can come to play to help do this. We need to be careful that we're not continuing just to have more debate about it and, for example, more public inquiries when the resources should be directed at the right outcomes.
That is just a matter of opinion, but I would say at this point on the specific motion that because we don't have the report in front of us—and by the way, it says “respond to the report of Amnesty International and the United Nations”. Is it a combined report?
Are there two reports?